teonismowikiaorg-20200214-history
Talk:Argumento dos fatos mínimos
Minimal Facts Reconsidered Or Not Considered At All : " if someone attacks the sources you are using, you know that they are out of step, not only with conservative scholars, but also sceptical scholars." : I wonder what you think this means. ::: Bart Ehrman rightly notes that scholarly consensus is not evidence. Habermas, himself seems to agree with this in that he points out that Jesus was condemned to death precisely by such a consensus. Further he also mentions that when he was in school, the consensus was that the four gospels were not biographies. A view he certainly disagrees with. A consensus is only as strong as its weakest agreement. This is to say that, the value of the consensus lies in what the agreement is based on. Scholar A may accept Jesus burial because he accepts that Jesus was crucified and it makes sense to him that he would have been buried. Scholar B, may agree Jesus was buried as a means of moving to the discussion of resurrection appearances, which he rejects. Pointing to a consensus as some sort of proof demonstrates, I think, a failure to really understand Habermas' argument and a failure to think carefully about the argument being made. There's no short cut to knowledge. I see a lengthy recitation of the argument, but little effort at understanding it. You haven't made the argument your own or thought about it critically. Perhaps, I'm wrong, Perhaps, you've simply followed the well conected dots. Perhaps I misread your remarks concerning consensus. Lets take another example. The idea that Jews from the very begining have implicitly accepted the empty tomb by claiming the disciples stole Jesus body; yet the only example Habermas and Licona offer is a citation from the New Testament! Oddly enough you do exactly the same. Sort of gives short shrift to criteria 2, 4 and 5. That is, out of all the purported Jewish polemics "admiting" this from the early first century to our modern age, none are available to either of you!? In deed, you don't even consider that the gospel writers may have had an interest in putting those charges in Jewish mouthes. It's as if your criteria for historicity doesn't inform your investigation at all! Nor theirs for that matter. ::: This opens yet another problem. Neither Habmeras, Licona or you offer any independent or secular sources for your criteria for historicity. Is it that secular historians don't use the same criteria? Is it just that you don't understand the value of showing the same sort of consensus vis historians criteria. What about consistency, coherence or contextual credibility? Are these criteria irrelavant? If so why? Sp1ke0kill3r 02:29, June 6, 2012 (UTC) Contextual Credibility "Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Jewish Sahendrin, and a member of the council which condemned Jesus. Considering the hostility that the early church felt towards the Jewish leaders, whom they considered to have put Jesus to death, it is unlikey that they would simply invent a story which shows their enemies in a good light." You may want to rethink this argument. it runs counter to the gospel description. Mark 15:43 describes him as "waiting for the kingdom of God". Also see Luke 23:51 As a member of the Sanhedrin that would be a redundant; redundant unless it meant something different from traditional Jewish ideas about "the kingdom of God". Matthew 27:57 provides some clarity. Joseph is described as having "become a disciple of Jesus." John 19:38 describes him as a secret disciple. If Joseph was a disciple of Jesus as four purported eye witnesses (a consensus, by the way) tell us, then Jesus burial by him would not be the embarassment you describe. On the contrary, it would represent quite a victory over the Sanhedrin: The very people who condemned Jesus to death. If we believe John, a purported eyewitness, we would accept the idea that Joseph kept his discipleship a secret out of "fear of the Jews" making his already bold deed highly doubtful:We are expected to believe that at a time when Jesus publicly known disciples were in hiding, Joseph, who already had good reason to hide his discipleship ("...because he feared the Jews"), -in the face of the "hostility'(Of course, there was no "early church" at this time and the only emotion the disciples must have been experiencing vis the Sanhedrin, would be outright fear. Hostility would not have them cowering behind closed doors)-decides to risk exposure by asking to bury Jesus. Let's pause to consider what John 19:38 is telling us. "fear of the Jews" is, at minimum, a reference to the Sanhedrin Such an act would be in defiance of the Sanhedrin at a time when the hostility you describe had reached its high point in Jesus crucifixion. Indeed, Jesus conviction was for high treason which is precisely about allegiances and here is a member of the Sanhedrin in one act comming out of the closet, as it were and showing his true colors. Certainly, he could have pointed to customary attitudes concerning death and the holiday.The question is why would Joseph have risked exposure? Further, we are expected to believe that after going through the day of preperation, Joseph decides, in the last 3 hours left to him,before heading home to eat the Passover meal- to set foot in a pagan institution; making him unclean inorder to defy Jewish law by being in the presence of a dead body. And let's not forget That Mark 15:46 has Joseph buying linen cloth. How does this behaviour on Joseph's part look when pared with the principle of contextual credibilty? Sp1ke0kill3r 01:59, June 8, 2012 (UTC) Different methods? Using this method you cannot bring in facts which do not fit the criteria. Some examples of facts that you could use are- Here you give lists of different facts, but the method is the same. I'm not sure why your heading is different methods when you dont talk about any other method. Further. I don't see why scholarly consensus is neccessarily a criteria. After all, Habermas et al use consensus as a means to have common ground with their opponents with which to frame a discussion; Not as proof of anything. Further, as I've indicated your "facts" don't always fit the criteria. Lets take Paul's conversion. 1.) Paul's experience in Acts does not pass independent attestation: Not only do the men traveling with him not see or- depending on which version of the story- hear what he experiences; nor do we have any of their testimony. They simply disappear. It's not much of a stretch to think, if the story is even true- this is because their testimony was not favorable. 2.) Not only do we not have his own account, but Paul contradicts the Acts account. Wheras Acts has Paul blinded for three days, then healed. Paul tells us he went away to Arabia for three years. That is, the eyewitness testimony works against the "independent attestation" of Acts. 3.) Paul's own testimony doesn't even establish, he saw a risen Jesus. Habermas himself indicates Paul's description could be interpreted as Jesus revealed himself to me or in me. If it's "in me" this is compatible with some sort of epiphany or insight. An epiphany can explain Paul's conversion without his actually seeing a risen Jesus. While we might not be sure about the souce of Paul's conversion, we can accept his testimony about what the disciples told him; yet where do we have independent attestation for the substance of their conversation? The world learned on January 1 2000(and again on January 1 2001) That Y2k was well attested to, but entirely false. You might argue that my comparison is unfair because Y2k was something predicted and not something that had actually happend; yet precisely because we are attempting to establish what actually happened, we can't consider that distinction meaningful. Independent sources make something more likely, but don't guarentee their accuracy and it's precisely their accuaracy that is in question. Still, further Paul's value is in his attestation to what the disciples said, but not what they experienced. In sum, we have someone who may or may not have seen a resurrected Jesus who appears to have been in a great position to tell us what the disciples said. Yet where is the independent attestation of that? Sp1ke0kill3r 05:23, June 9, 2012 (UTC) Independent Attestation In your treatment of Jesus crucifixion you claim It's multiply attested and include In Paul's letters, such as 1 Corinthians 15. Anyone who has children, learns very quickly not to rely on multiple attestation or they think the dog is constantly surfing in the tub wearing Dad's new suit. Independent attestation is the label you're looking for. Yet this is something to be determined rather than asserted. In First Corinthians Paul's testimony is not independent. He received this information from the disciples. Still further in your consideration of the empty tomb you claim "It is implied by the letters of Paul" but implication is not testimony and it doesn't pass most of your other arbitrarily selected criteria: Since Paul received this from the disciples, it is not independently attested. Since Paul is no longer an enemy, it's not Enemy attestation. It's not embarrassing. Paul was not an eyewitness. So we have early testimony about the content of a conversation. Similarly the gospels only pass independent attestation. In some cases they don't even do that. They don't pass as eye witnesses.